this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
870 points (99.5% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2627 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 263 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Get these fairy-tale-believing cunts out of government.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 82 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I will do my part by not voting in protest! That will surely work! (/s)

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 59 points 5 months ago (33 children)

Politicians famously consider the opinions of people who don't vote. /s

load more comments (33 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 27 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Whose idea was it to appoint Supreme Court justices for life? That seems like asking for trouble.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago

Blame the conservatives for abusing the system.

[–] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Honestly as much as the lifetime appointment wasn't the worst idea the drafters had in terms of something for long term stability when the positions in every other branch have varying degrees of volatility, not having some process baked into the Constitution to deal with bad actors in the judiciary was a gross oversight.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)

The Constitution seems to have been written with the idea that politicians will have good intentions. The checks and balances seem to be just to enforce compromise and prevent a single bad actor.

It doesn't have any protections about and entire political party colluding to grab power. I don't know how we fix this without amendments or a brand new constitution

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 168 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

Windsor goes on to tell Alito: “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that — to return our country to a place of godliness.”

“I agree with you. I agree with you,” replies Alito

Disturbing on the face. But then you think, what exactly do they think is ungodly? Business regulation? Gay right to exist and marry? BLM? It's gay and trans rights isn't it? Let that sink it, they think human fucking rights are ungodly.

VOTE.

[–] ZeroCool@vger.social 73 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

The GOP will be coming for Brown v Board of Education next, and you can bet your ass Clarence Thomas and the other right wing justices will be all for it.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago (6 children)

I wonder if there will be a third school for Asian kids. Or do they go with black? Is it white and "other"?

[–] ZeroCool@vger.social 46 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Schools? Oh, we won't have any of those when the GOP is done.

[–] kevindqc@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Silly you. There will be Catholic schools to teach the bible, and to teach girls how to be good submissive housewives.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 41 points 5 months ago (2 children)

No, actually. The current GOP stance on compulsory schooling is, "no". They really don't believe every child should be educated.

I'm not even talking about kids with special needs or "just minorities". They really don't believe in compulsory education. It's considered government overreach.

The ideal GOP educational system is 100% private and only those who can afford it get to go. They couldn't care less about literacy rates.

They want the Bible taught in schools but they don't want kids to actually read it. That would reveal what's in it (liberal stuff everywhere!), after all.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 123 points 5 months ago (6 children)

“I think you’re probably right,” Alito replies. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

In other words, dude wants some Taliban shit and wants to be able to control people are not prescribed to his religion.

If his family doesn’t want to have abortions, or wants their kids to learn about god in school, there is nothing stopping them from living that way. Just don’t force me to live that way.

The establishment clause yo

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[–] MartianRecon@lemmus.org 14 points 5 months ago

Well yeah but the number one thing these people crave is dominion over others. Any professed love for liberty, freedom, and the rule of law will go out the window the second they can successfully do so.

That's why they are acting now. Because their demographics are cooked after this election, so they are going all in to try and steal control away from the people.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 117 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The second flag is the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a Revolutionary War-era banner. The “Appeal to Heaven” language references philosopher John Locke, who argued that, when earthly political appeals are exhausted, men have the right to take up arms and let God sort out the justness of the cause. While the The Appeal to Heaven flag was not always controversial, it has been revived by militant Christian nationalists and was also a potent symbol on Jan. 6. This flag was flown at the Alitos’ vacation home in New Jersey in 2023.

I didn't know the flag was literally "kill everyone and let God sort them out"...

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

This is some real Sons of Jacob type of stuff...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 84 points 5 months ago

Excellent job by Lauren Windsor. A full mask off, candid discussion that shows blatant partisanship is a step up from the other wrongdoings we've heard of Alito and Thomas so far.

Republicans are a craven mafia family so they'll do nothing, but this is still a very important news story. Change to the Court will only come once the public passes a critical threshold of distrust for it, and this story brings us closer and closer to that tipping point.

The Court will be reformed in our lifetimes. It's gone too far and will be course corrected. It's just a matter of when. And I can only hope it will be while Alito and Thomas and McConnell are all still alive so they can see the consequences of their partisan actions.

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 62 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Anyone can pay $150 to become a dues-paying member and rub elbows with the court’s nine justices at events like the dinner where Windsor spoke with Alito. (Tickets for the dinner were an extra $500.)

this is all it took for him to admit this stuff? anybody with 650$ could have walked in and asked him a couple prodding questions? these guys really arent even trying to hide it anymore

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

Traitors do be tratoring on the cheap.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 61 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (12 children)

Mark my words. These people are not just willing, but eager to unleash nuclear hellfire in the Middle East, under the ludicrous delusion that they can fulfill prophecy and force Jesus to return. They shouldn't be trusted to run fast food joints or craft supply stores, much less a superpower. It's an apocalypse cult. They've convinced themselves that they're better than everyone, but their religion spread across the globe by genocide, enslavement, and forced conversion, not by loving their neighbors. They have been trying to end the world for 2000 years.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 60 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I'm sure Samuel Alito's wife is an expert ventriloquist who is saying these things in a very convincing impression of her husband.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 56 points 5 months ago (4 children)

By law, religious people should not be allowed in government or policy making. Delusional people cannot be trusted with such work.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 54 points 5 months ago (1 children)

i'm so fucking sick of religion wrecking everything in this country. if people weren't so dumb that they buy into all the bronze age fairy tale bullshit, then they wouldn't be bootlicking these greedy scumbags pretending to be righteous while being the worst examples of the species

[–] paf0@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers." - Jesse Ventura

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 53 points 5 months ago (10 children)

Wow, that’s pretty fucking blatant.

But so were the last dozen things we’ve discovered about the Tribunal of Six.

Unfortunately, I expect nobody will do anything about this in an official capacity, due to obstructionism by the right, and because politicians on the left would probably think iT’s toO diViSiVE

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 51 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The guy can say anything he wants. It's not like if he does something illegal that the supreme court is going to convict him. He doesn't need to ever win an election, he's there for life.

This will just upset the people who already know the guy is a problem and are already upset with him.

I wish justices had term limits.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (3 children)

It's not like someone is going to get mad enough to off him...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world 47 points 5 months ago (8 children)

He's surprisingly right, even if he is part of the problem.

The current political climate in this country can't last into the long-term future. I dislike the idea of conflict but many of the current right's ideals simply cannot coexist with those outside of their cult. The right has also been more aggressive about dismantling the country in several areas as a means of takeover. They really do see this as a battle or a war.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago

And remember, it only takes one side to start a war. Once that happens, you fight to defend yourself or you die.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] exanime 43 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I mean, the USA has a Supreme Court Justice literally taking bribes from a billionaire who has stakes in FOUR cases this judge has not recused himself.... and literally NOTHING has happened.

Do you really think this recording will do anything?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 42 points 5 months ago

Illegitimate court. Every single ruling by them should be thrown out. Almost half of them are corrupt and compromised, letting personal beliefs and feelings sway law. Justice is supposed to be blind, not Christian nationalist. Get them all off the bench.

[–] CultHero@lemmy.world 38 points 5 months ago (10 children)

American evangelicals are the craziest bunch of kooks on the planet. As a Canadian I gotta wonder if normal Americans are embarrassed by their evangelicals. I mean it's all about money and maybe a little Jesus as long as you hate the gays.

It's nuts.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

as you hate the gays.

You're not giving them enough credit. They also hate trans, women, pregnant people, free-thought… the list goes on and on.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 36 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Pressed on whether the court has an obligation to put the country on a more “moral path,” Roberts turns the tables on his questioner: “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” He argues instead: “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.” Presented with the claim that America is a “Christian nation” and that the Supreme Court should be “guiding us in that path,” Roberts again disagrees, citing the perspectives of “Jewish and Muslim friends,” before asserting, “It’s not our job to do that. It’s our job to decide the cases the best we can.”

I know John Roberts has made some terrible rulings, but he deserves credit where it's due in that he won't literally tear up the Constitution. Unfortunately he's the exact kind of Justice the Trump-era GOP tries to avoid choosing, because he puts the Constitution above Trump.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

he deserves credit where it’s due in that he won’t literally tear up the Constitution

Guy pealing big ribbons off the edge of the document for the last 19 years still hasn't shoved it wholesale through a shredder. And for that we should be grateful, maybe, unless oops he's in a 5-4 decision were the other justices decide to go at constitutional law with a blowtorch.

he puts the Constitution above Trump

Excited for him to put on RGB's "I Dissent!" necklace in the SCOTUS decision that hands Trump Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia in 2024.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 32 points 5 months ago

Alito made these remarks in conversation at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner on June 3, a function that is known to right-wing activists as an opportunity to buttonhole Supreme Court justices. His comments were recorded by Lauren Windsor, a liberal documentary filmmaker. Windsor attended the dinner as a dues-paying member of the society under her real name, along with a colleague. She asked questions of the justice as though she were a religious conservative. 

Great reporting job by Lauren Windsor.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 24 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Seems like y'all going to need a well regulated militia.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago

Literal prejudice in a judge.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Lordy, I hope there are tapes!

[–] distantsounds@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago

The article and the headline both clearly state that it was documented. No consequences will come of this either.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 20 points 5 months ago

Who cares what Samuel Alito said? It's not like he's REWRITING Laws that our Elected Representatives already passed so it aligns more with HIS Bias instead of the text of the Constitution!

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ever wish you'd stumble onto a Death Note? To hell with that psycho manually scrawling the names of whoever pops into his head. Strategically study and pick off corrupt and fashy leaders with a variety of cardiovascular illnesses and aggressive cancers. Maybe the occasional shanking of a child molester, accidental head trauma for an ultra greedy megachurch pastor, or quiet suicide for life- & planet-wrecking ceos and tycoons. All randomly spread out and just enough to keep their organization stagnant or sliding backwards. I mean if you have the power of a deity at your disposal it's not that hard to use it strategically for the benefit of humanity.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Juice@midwest.social 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He said that was actually his wife speaking

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] slickgoat@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Most of this kind of problem can be fixed with term limits - say 7 years. That way there would be a few changes of justices every presidential term.

That, and stop making the Supremes political appointees. The Australian parliament takes a shortlist of suitable candidates from a judicial review board. Our High Court is law-qualified and peer reviewed. The Government usually takes the first name off the recommended list. No particular political party has an advantage.

That's not to say that our governments love the high court. No government loves a hand brake. However, the people respect the bench, and the system works well.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›